About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
who as a senator gets to take part as to whether or not chuck hagel gets to be defense secretary. and here is his comment on "talk radio". >> let me bring up one piece of information that been shapiro put out today, which is one of the foreign funders behind senator hagel that he has not disclosed formally is called friends of hamas, is that is in fact true would that lead you to vote against mr. hagel? >> you know i saw that information today also. that is more and more concerning. >> you can't take money from a terrorist organization and come from the united states senate and ask for a vote, can you? >> i am very troubled by it. >> i am very troubled by it, it being chuck hagel's imaginary connection to the organization, on a bright dot server, and apparently in rand paul's mind. that is who gets to vote to confirm the defense secretary, very troubled by this terrorist organization that he heard about in a chat room somewhere. don't feel so bad, rush, every country's got them, we just give them more power than most countries do. republicans filibustered chuck hagel's nomination
. the president's nominee to be defense secretary, former republican secretary chuck hagel was confirmed today, and will be sworn in and take over at that time pentagon. chuck hagel had the majority support, all the republicans in the senate, and the majority. it took this long to get him confirmed because republicans filibustered his nomination. nobody has ever done that before. nobody has ever before used a filibuster to block the confirmation of a cabinet nominee, ever in the history of our country, but they did it to chuck hagel. why? who knows? republicans in the senate pulled the fire alarm on this one, they broke glass in case of emergency. they did something that has never been done before in the history of the republic. and because they did it, there is now precedent for them to filibuster the next nominee. they broke glass for a nominee who in his case had bipartisan support to be confirmed. and the republicans in the senate did it in a way that didn't actually stop the confirmation. so you won nothing. but you did further break the institution where you work. there is an effort alre
. there are not a lot of people that want to do anything. that is what chuck hagel has in common, you could be the most conservative senator, john mccain's pick for the cabinet. as soon as you get a little bit of obama on you they can't work with you. and it is their problem, a lot of us have to deal with it but it is fundamentally a failure of the republican party and it is why they're going to continue to lose elections in and perhaps past the obama era. >> paul ryan wanted a piece of this anti-immigration obama stuff, so let's listen to him. >> leaking it out does set things in the wrong direction. the things we have to ask ourselves, particularly with the white house is president obama looking for a bipartisan law? and without addressing future flow, by giving advantage who cut in front of line for immigrants who came here legally, not dealing with border security adequately, that tells us he is looking for a bipartisan advantage, and not a solution. >> steve, it tells us it is not actually a complete legislative proposal. >> it is a starting point, and again, one of the republican's favorite lines
on chuck hagel and a cruise ship and hagel and chocolate, but it was during to hearing with the very sexy name of wall street reform, and consumer protection, the witnesses were seven federal financial industry regulators from places like the securities exchange commission. because elizabeth warren was a junior member of the committee, it took about an hour and a half for her to question the witnesses. when she got her turn she made the most of it, asking a really, really good question, a question that has been lingering ever since financial crisis began. >> i know there have been landmark settlements but we face very big issues with financial institutions. if they can break the law and drag in billions in profits, and then turn around and settle, paying out of those profits, they don't have much incentive to follow the law. it is also the case that every time there is a settlement and not a trial it means that we didn't have those days and days and days of testimony about what those financial institutions had been up to. so the question i really want to ask is about how tough you are. ab
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)